My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2012
>
112712 Special Meeting
>
01 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/16/2012 4:42:30 PM
Creation date
11/16/2012 4:42:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/27/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
of the property owners then that agreement would be able to go into effect because it would pre- <br /> date the initiative and vest those entitlements. <br /> Councilmember McGovern said if this is approved, does this give additional rights to Oak Grove <br /> to say through litigation that they have vested rights and anything that comes from this should <br /> not have anything to do with them. City Attorney Roush said it will not give Oak Grove any <br /> more or less vested entitlements than it has today. Councilmember McGovern said she had <br /> problems with the language and wants to make sure as many hillsides are protected as <br /> possible. She also wondered if a moratorium in the southeast hills could be a part of the <br /> initiative and whether or not the Council would be willing to take whatever is accomplished to a <br /> vote of the people. <br /> Whatever comes out of the collaborative process, she said if not ratified by the voters, it can be <br /> changed by a majority of the Council. Mayor Hosterman said the only problem with that is that if <br /> this is done, nothing will be in concrete until 2010. Councilmember McGovern said she believes <br /> the Council owes the public firm knowledge that it cannot be changed by a majority of the <br /> Council. She said Councils come and go and if not taken to a vote of the people, it can be <br /> changed. To her, it is a lot of work to do to not have it ratified by the voters. <br /> Mayor Hosterman said she was not sure if she was willing to contemplate having this grow to a <br /> two-year process. <br /> Councilmember McGovern said if we want all voters to have a voice, they should be allowed to <br /> vote. The initiative on the ballot gives them that right, and to her, she cannot support putting <br /> anything on the ballot. <br /> Councilmember Sullivan said what is disturbing to him is that in the last two years there have <br /> been two examples of citizens exercising their right to petition their government. The <br /> referendum with the Oak Grove project and the citizens who have come up with the initiative. <br /> The developer sued with the first and got the referendum overturned and it is stuck in the appeal <br /> courts, and the second, the Council is taking action to undermine and over-turn the other <br /> citizen's actions. He questioned what message that sends to the community, and he thinks this <br /> is a mistake. Regarding the language in the initiative, this is a status quo type of measure, it <br /> creates a plan with no outcome, and with the intent to undermine and defeat the citizen's <br /> initiative. This shows a lack of leadership on the Council and it is a political trick. This is also a <br /> "trust us" measure in comparison to the citizen's initiative which is clear. He believes that based <br /> on the last meeting when Council received the staff report, answers to questions, and the <br /> developer's intent, it is clear what the initiative will do. <br /> Councilmember Sullivan also said there is talk about people writing the initial:ive in the middle of <br /> the night around a kitchen table, but those who wrote the language are former members of the <br /> Council and planning commissioners that have more experience combined than this entire <br /> sitting Council. <br /> He said he has a problem with "collaborative and public process". He said one developer <br /> showed up and suggested putting a competing initiative on the ballot that reaffirms the existing <br /> general plan policies and the Council did what the one developer wanted done; it disregarded <br /> the public testimony and answers from staff on the questions. Councilmembers read prepared <br /> speeches as to their position, and they went in the one developer's direction. The fact that one <br /> developer showed up given the potential impact on their future plans is a huge statement, as <br /> well. He voiced a concern with the schedule, said Greenbrier Homes has been ready for awhile <br /> with their Lund Ranch project for 150 houses in the hills, and they could submit this at any time <br /> City Council Minutes 13 July 15, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.